No, even if the low art and culture are sentimental and tasteless, they should not be the subject of high art. The main reason is the fact that low art is unique on its own, and thus, it should be evaluated and valued on its own merits. There is a strong resemblance between modern art and low art because both strive for innovation, experimentation, and rejection of conservative values. In other words, low art cannot be objectively understood and regarded by using the framework of high art since they are conceptually and inherently different with their correspondingly unique attributes. Thus, a viewer might miss the core essence of experiencing low culture as high art, which is why low art should be evaluated within its own realm.
When it comes to the Pakistani artist Shahzia Sikander her work is an example of miniature painting, which inspired her to create the given art. Her prime interest lies in exploring the social construct of tradition, which can be seen in the image. Samuel Fosso uses self-portraits to capture the essence of key historical figures and victims. The first element of the similarity of these works is the use of patterns and geometric figures reflective of the traditions of Africa and Persia. Secondly, both images put an individual at the center of focus within the cultural and traditional frameworks to convey the historical foundations these innovative works are derived from.
Thirdly, the most important similarity between the two images is the fact that they can be explored more richly by zooming into them. Although the miniature painting is made so by design, Fosso’s image also has this element because it uses a high-resolution photo, which allows for capturing details well. However, it should be noted that Samuel Fosso uses a realistic depiction or approach due to the use of photographing method, whereas Shahzia Sikander utilizes miniature painting (Fichner-Rathus, 2017). Therefore, the former artist’s art has an element of realism with the corresponding limitations of decorations and costumes.
PRO, Name Surname, ‘Medicare for All’ should become an option for American healthcare in 2022 and beyond because it will eliminate healthcare access inequality, incentivize public health improvement, and make the U.S. more responsive to major health threats. The latter three statements are supported by evidence and the major reasons for making healthcare a universal right for every person. Health should not be a privilege for the wealthy, while the poor and working-class struggle to find resources for healthcare, food, and other basic necessities. It is troubling that the most prosperous nation on earth has one of the highest prices for essential pharmacological products, such as insulin, the highest bankruptcy cases due to medical emergencies, and an increasing disparity between the upper and lower classes.
‘Medicare for All’ will not solve all of the major issues of American society, but it will at least ensure that people have access to healthcare. Firstly, since healthcare comprises a significant part of every American’s spending, the ever-increasing gap between the rich and poor can be narrowed by making healthcare a universal and human right. Secondly, universal healthcare will improve public health improvement, because it will no longer be an individual’s interest at controlling forces involved in promoting public health deterioration, such as soda companies. Thirdly, universal healthcare will make the U.S. more responsive to major health threats because the current system is highly disorganized and dispersed, which was evident under the pressures of the pandemic.
Reference
Fichner-Rathus, L. (2017). Understanding art (11th ed.). Cengage Learning.